Forward looking Summary
Situation
Next Team C will conduct Performance Test 3 which is Energy Optimization and Performance Test 4 which is final testing. Performance Test 3 will use the vehicle chosen after performance test 1, so the vehicle which is the most successful completing the performance tests consistently and efficiently and the code chosen in Performance Test 2 which is the code that successfully completes the performance test efficiently. The vehicle and code will be altered, but changed in smaller ways to optimize energy. This will be done by making simple design changes to the vehicle, such as moving the propellers to be positioned lower on the AEV. This repositioning could cause the propellers could allow the propellers to maybe more effectively move the AEV by using the same amount of energy. The code will also be altered by potentially eliminating or decreasing power braking when possible, which is having the AEV reverse and accelerate to slow down the vehicle faster. Power braking uses more energy; therefore, it should be decreased when possible to optimize energy.
In Performance Test 4 the team’s will try to decide on the most energy efficient design and code to pass the final test which involves the AEV triggering the gate, going though it, picking up cargo, coming back and triggering gate, and travel to close to the starting position with the cargo. This will be done by doing many trial runs to make sure the code consistently works to further ensure the team will pass the final testing. The team will make small changes so the AEV stops where it needs to on the track during different parts of the final testing. Spending time on making sure the code is changed to produce the most consistent results is important because it is important for the AEV to stop exactly between the two sensors before the gate to be able to trigger the gate, and it is important to stop at a certain distance from the caboose and bring it back the right distance so the AEV can come back near the starting position where it is supposed to stop.
Forward Looking goals
This week Team C will alter the code first because after looking at the power vs time and power vs distance plots from the previous performance test the team is sure on where changes can be made to optimize energy. This should be completed before performance test 4. Then team C will altering the code to produce runs where the AEV stops at precise locations consistently for the final testing. This should be completed before the graded final performance test run.
Upcoming Schedule
Table 1: Week 14 schedule
Task Start | Members Present | Date | Due Date | Time Needed |
Committee meeting 2 | All | 3/29/18 | 3/29/18 | 0.5 hr |
Lab 11a (getting prepared for performance test 3) | All | 3/29/18 | 3/29/18 | 2hrs |
Progress report 3 | All | 4/1/18 | 4/2/18 | |
Lab 11b (executing performance test 3) | All | 4/2/18 | 4/2/18 | 1hr |
Lab 11c (testing different codes) | All | 4/4/18 | 4/4/18 | 1hr |
Getting prepared for final presentation | All | 4/7/18 | 4/7/18 | 3hrs |
Lab 12a (finalizing the AEV design ) | All | 4/9/18 | 4/9/18 | 1hr |
Lab 12b (deciding the best code for final test) | All | 4/11/18 | 4/11/18 | 1hr |
Lab 12c (final test) | All | 4/12/18 | 4/12/18 | 2hrs |
Lab 13a (getting ready for final presentation and CDR) | All | 4/14/18 | 4/19/18 | |
Lab 13b(final oral presentation) | All | 4/14/18 | 4/18/18 | |
Lab 13c (CDR) | All | 4/17/18 | 4/19/18 |
Appendix
Code used to test both horizontal and vertical design during performance test 1
motorSpeed(4,26.5);
//Runs all motors at a constant speed of 26.5% power
goToAbsolutePosition(123);
//sets all the motors to a constant power of 26.5% power until they reach a //position of 123 marks from its current position.
reverse(4);
//Reverses all motors
brake(4);
//brakes all the motors
goFor(9);
//breaks all the motors for 9 seconds
reverse(4);
//Reverses the polarity of all motors
motorSpeed(4,25);
goFor(3);////Runs all motors at a constant speed of 25% power for 3 seconds
brake(4);
//breaks all the motors
First code that was used for performance test 2 (1st code)
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,35);
goToAbsolutePosition(150);//runs all motors at a speed of 35% power until the AEV reaches a position of 150 marks from its starting point
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,60);
goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds
brake(4);
goFor(7);//breaks all motors for 7 seconds
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,27);
goToRelativePosition(160);
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,60);
goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds
brake(7);
goFor(6);//breaks all motors for 6 seconds
motorSpeed(4,45);
goToRelativePosition(118);//runs all motors at a speed of 45% power until the AEV reaches a position of 118 marks from its current point
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,60);
goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds
brake(4);
goFor(6);//breaks all motors for 6 seconds
Second code developed by the team for more efficient AEV design (2nd code)
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,35);
goToAbsolutePosition(147);//runs all motors at a speed of 35% power until the AEV reaches a position of 147 marks from its starting point
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,60);
goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds
brake(4);
goFor(7);//breaks all motors for 7 seconds
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,37);
goToRelativePosition(53);//runs all motors at a speed of 37% power until the AEV reaches a position of 53 marks from its current point
brake(4);
goFor(15);//breaks all motors for 15 seconds
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,45);
goToRelativePosition(118);/runs all motors at a speed of 45% power until the AEV reaches a position of 118 marks from its current point
reverse(4);//reverses all motors
motorSpeed(4,60);
goFor(0.5);//runs all motors at a speed of 60% power for 0.5 seconds
brake(4);
goFor(6);//breaks all motors for 6 seconds
Meeting 6
Date: 3/22/2018
Time: 1;30 pm
Members present: Marley Mclaughlin, Nathan Teeters, Sanila Reza, Shreya Byreddy
Location: Hitchcock hall
Topics discussed:
The work that needs to be completed for CDR draft by individual members and topics for performance test 2 were discussed.
Objective:
The main objective of today’s meeting was to finish CDR draft and the design the basic code that is used to test the AEV to test in the upcoming lab.
To do/action items:
The team came up with a plan to complete both CDR draft and performance test 2.
Decisions:
Marley was responsible for doing the discussions and conclusions for concept screening and scoring lab. Shreya had to be working on the appendix and the introduction for the draft. Nathan would be working on designing the sketches for the AEV’s in solidworks and doing the executive summary. Shanila would be working on experimental methodology for the draft. Apart from that everyone would have to come up with their own code for the performance teste 2 and the best code would be selected in the lab.
Reflections:
The team was able to finish the draft before the due date. Moreover the team made a good progress than the other meetings with the work assigned to each member. The codes written by each team member made the performance test a lot easier.
Meeting 7
Date: 4/1/2018
Time: 1 pm
Members present: Marley Mclaughlin, Nathan Teeters, Sanila Reza, Shreya Byreddy
Location: Hitchcock hall
Topics discussed:
Division of tasks among team members for the completion of progress report 3
Objective:
The takeaway from this meeting is to complete the progress report before hand and have some of the team members verify the content in order to deliver the main ideas and results behind the performance tests.
To do/action items:
The team has decided to split the work among all the members equally in order to complete the tasks with more efficiency and perfection.
Decisions:
Marley was responsible for completing the results and analysis of the observations from both the performance tests. Shreya had to be working on the appendix and setting up a schedule for the upcoming goals and the tasks that each team member has to perform. Nathan would be working on limitations and errors for both the performance test and would also be writing the situation for the backward looking summary. Shanila would be working on forward looking situation and forward looking goals for the upcoming tasks of the AEV design.
Reflections:
The team was able to finish the draft before the due date. Moreover the team made a good progress than the other meetings with the work assigned to each member. The codes written by each team member made the performance test a lot easier. The team came up with different ideas for the codes that make the AEV more efficient on the monorail tracks.
Figure 1: power vs. time for the horizontal pull AEV design
Figure 2: power vs. time for the vertical push AEV design
Figure 3: power vs. time for the 1st code
Figure 4: power vs. time for the 2nd code
figure 5: orthographic drawings of the horizontal design
Figure 5: orthographic drawings of the horizontal design